Apple staring down possibility of new per-employee tax in Cupertino

Apple's home city of Cupertino is considering a per-employee tax to generate funds for city infrastructure, and the tech giant might be among those companies impacted by the regulations.

Cupertino's town manager David Brandt said to the San Francisco Chronicle that the city is modeling its new effort on one in Google's Mountain View and another that was just imposed in Seattle. In the latter, businesses that make $20 million or more a year are charged $275 per employee.

The Mountain View proposal which would be levied on Google isn't a linear increase per head. Google's share would be around $10 million with deductions applied to companies that invest in the city's facilities and mass transportation systems.

The effort isn't a done deal, though. In both Mountain View and Cupertino, the city councils would need to approve the measure before it goes to the voters -- who could shoot it down as well.

Increased taxation in the form of a per-person tax has its opponents.

"While it might feel good for some to take a whack at big job creators," Bay Area Council CEO Jim Wunderman wrote, "Such taxes will only undermine our region's long-term economic health and competitiveness."

Proponents include Councilman Barry Chang. He pushed for a headcount tax when he was mayor of Cupertino in 2017, angling for a $1,000 per head tax on large companies. The effort was staunchly opposed and ultimately failed.

Government is a voracious beast seeking to devour all it comes in contact with. For decades now the Federal government has been the number one employer in the country. It is entirely possible that at sometime in the future government will be the ONLY employer in the country. It’s like a star that has run out of fuel and is expanding to consume all the planets that orbit it.

Government is a voracious beast seeking to devour all it comes in contact with. For decades now the Federal government has been the number one employer in the country. It is entirely possible that at sometime in the future government will be the ONLY employer in the country. It’s like a star that has run out of fuel and is expanding to consume all the planets that orbit it.

Wow, far out man ... That's exactly what you "sound like". Time for you to put the bong down and go to a meeting.

If this applies equally to govt and universities as well then I could support it but if it only applies to for profit companies then no way. But this begs the question of why not just pass a flat city income tax like other places have done for decades. The income tax would apply to 100% of all the employees working within the city limit. Oh that’s right that is way to fair and thus will be opposed by the left wing nuts running the place. Too simple too logical and too fair to be the answer.

How about local government limit itself ... Then it might suddenly find it lives within its means.

This is such an essential point. Many years ago the government functioned just as well or better than today and we had relatively little debt and far lower taxes than we have now. Our government has overextended itself and the inevitable bloat and waste comes in the form of unnecessarily high taxes and completely insane ways of taxing the people.

We as citizens need to stop relying on the government to fix problems that our communities can and should deal with—for instance caring for the poor (among many other things).

The homelessness issue is complex but imposing tax head is not a solution. You cannot blame businesses for homeless people.
I hope that tax head will be declared unconstitutional. Seattle is now gathering a lot of petitions to repeal the head tax.

If this applies equally to govt and universities as well then I could support it but if it only applies to for profit companies then no way. But this begs the question of why not just pass a flat city income tax like other places have done for decades. The income tax would apply to 100% of all the employees working within the city limit. Oh that’s right that is way to fair and thus will be opposed by the left wing nuts running the place. Too simple too logical and too fair to be the answer.

This is not workable. If you live in SF and work in Cupertino, you will pay two local income taxes. You are a taxation people.

In the spirit of full transparency it only seems fair that companies who are rallying against these increased taxes should divulge the financial incentives, real estate, tax abatements, tax deferrals, value of infrastructure upgrades, value of additional municipal services, and other financial concessions the companies are receiving from the municipalities that are proposing per-employee fees.

I distain additional taxes as much as anyone but I’ve also been impacted by company local relocations that crossed city boundaries that ended up costing me out of pocket nearly 10x the $275 per year amount that’s being thrown out in this case. Unlike a company, I couldn’t pass along additional fees to anyone or roll it into my cost of doing business.

This is all part and parcel to the negotiations that are always occurring between companies and municipalities. If the companies want to garner public sympathy then let’s get all the sleazy cards out on the table and see what’s really going on with these public-private relationships. My pessimist perspective is that no matter who “wins” this fight it will be the regular folk, employees, and taxpayers who ultimately end up footing the bill.

It's funny how stunned people act when the government makes even small demands of the corporate world during a time of record profits and endless rounds of stock buybacks.

Thank you. Thank you for voicing a rational viewpoint, and noticing the facts. It's really quite frustrating to constantly see all the knee-jerk libertarian anti-government, anti-consumer, anti-people commentary in threads on articles of this nature.

If this applies equally to govt and universities as well then I could support it but if it only applies to for profit companies then no way. But this begs the question of why not just pass a flat city income tax like other places have done for decades. The income tax would apply to 100% of all the employees working within the city limit. Oh that’s right that is way to fair and thus will be opposed by the left wing nuts running the place. Too simple too logical and too fair to be the answer.

"Way to fair?"

How would it be fair to demand, from a tiny business that makes a small profit, the same amount of tax as is demanded from a huge 20-MILLION dollar business?